"Blood is on the hands of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut." Believe it or not, this sick POS is serious!

You this is such shameful thing to say and such an incredibly ridiculous argument to make, that I almost don't feel that it deserves any attention. Except that this guy is not alone, he is part of a very scary and clearly well armed group of people who literally believe that the more guns we have as a society the safer we will be.

And did you hear Matthews get this lunatic to admit that the REAL purpose behind these 2nd Amendment types fixation on having weapons, is NOT personal safety, but rather to make sure they are readily available should they feel the need to fight against their own government?

They aren't worried about protecting themselves against criminals, they are planning the overthrow of the government!

You know that is exactly the same mindset shared by Schaeffer Cox, and the impetus for his threatening of local judges and law enforcement officials, which ultimately saw him thrown into Federal prison.

41 comments:

Yes. They're crazy and yes, their sole purpose is sedition. Rebellion against our own government. It's the selfish, spoiled brat version of if the government doesn't do what I want I'll hold my breath until I turn blue, kick my legs refuse to comply until I get my way. Only with guns.

Anyone that argues that the solution to our gun problem in this country is more guns has no grasp on reality. And crazy people shouldn't own guns.

Malaria problem? More mosquitoes.

Traffic problem? More cars.

Gas too expensive? It's those damned Prii. They don't use enough gas. We need to use MORE gas, then the price will come down.

Pollution problem? Deregulate and approve more coal fired plants.

Energy problem? Import more oil, drill more wells, deregulate again. Instead of wasting subsidies on solar and wind, we need to give them to Big Oil, and eliminate all taxes and regulations on oil and gas. Frack away. Build on, Keystone!

Oh, wait. They're already arguing for those last two. So I guess it does make sense.

Once you embrace one crazy notion, the rest don't seem so far fetched after all.

Yes, more guns would enable more citizens to act heroically, defending their property against intruders. Like this guy, who did exactly that a couple months ago, in a town that is only a few miles up the road from Newtown Connecticut: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14134818-police-connecticut-man-kills-suspected-burglar-then-learns-its-his-teenage-son.

"They aren't worried about protecting themselves against criminals, they are planning the overthrow of the government!"Yep. I think that is exactly why the NDAA didn't go poof b/c there are so many of these idiots around.This is why we still have the "Patriot" act.b/c of Patriots. B/c they are Domestic Terrorists.

Well, at least they were relatively quiet over the weekend. What we need, of course, is major gun controls and an end to our culture of violence from using war to end conflict to video games to the worship of guns.Beaglemom

After listening to these two nuts, I decided that there should be a Federal Make Work Project-- hiring all of those gun toting folks to protect our schools, our movie theaters, fast food restaurants, in fact any place where that could be the possible site of another crazed gunman. Yes, that's exactly what we need-- more guns, someone standing up and taking aim at the gunman, becoming another target. (People escape the Aurora movie theater gunman by hiding under movie seats, instead of stand up and taking aim at him. Firing in the dark with all those people around would have resulted in more deaths).

These people must have bomb shelters in their backyards, stockpiled with years' worth of food. They have guns to hold off their neighbors so they can survive. They are also just this side of nuts.

The other guest on Mathew's show had the best response to those who want everyone armed, including Kindergarten teachers. He pointed out that the Connecticut gunman's mother was armed - it didn't help her.

Which Larry Pratt was it? The one on Hardball? Or the one described in this old Rolling Stone Article speaking to Neo Nazis and other Christian Identity movement founders? They are the same person. Too bad Chris Matthews didn't do his research.

"The second amendment ain't about duck hunting," Larry Pratt began. The crowd of 150 neo-Nazis and self-described Christian patriots laughed. Looking like a slightly rumpled accountant, Pratt, the executive director of the Washington, D.C., organization should be able to own the military assault weapon of his choice - and form a militia to back up his rights. It was October 1992, and the men - and they were all men - had traveled thousands of miles from more than 14 states, sometimes sleeping in their cars, to Estes Park, Colo., a resort town two hours from Denver, at the eastern entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park. Some of those who attended had already been to jail for their cause, and others were prepared to go. Although many of the participants had met before, this gathering was different. This meeting marked the birth of the modern militia movement that would tie well-armed radicals to gun advocates in a right-wing national network."

And we have many militia groups in MI, and ALEC would love even more. With a willing legislature and Governor, there is nowhere in the entire state that will be a gun-free gun. Not one park, one school, one library or supermarket. I'm not sure if the aim to to send all peace believers somewhere else, or to just kill each other for sport. What a creepy bunch of evil people. And the NRA feeds the hate.

This notion has been increasingly frequent in comment threads since the first time Barrack Obama was elected President. Ted Nugent seems to be one of the proponents.

It's a peculiar mash-up of the Declaration of Independence phrase about "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" and the part of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that mentions "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Put those together with the right kind of glue and you get something like:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State to abolish the government and institute a new one...." and there you go.

Larry Pratt has some ideas on what to do about law enforcement. Do away with it. Replace law enforcement with armed militias.

"In addition to lobbying, GOA also puts put videos. Five days before the start of the 51 day siege near Waco, Texas (and four months after the Estes Park meeting, David Koresh showed one of GOA's videotapes to Robert Rodriguez, an ATF agent who had infiltrated the Waco compound and was attending Branch Davidian Bible sessions. The video "portrayed ATF as an evil agency that threatened the liberty of U.S. citizens," according to a Treasury Department report. Pratt has written more expansively on those views, arguing in his 1990 book Armed People Victorious that professional law enforcement should be replaced by militias. "It is time that the United States," he wrote, "return to reliance on an armed people." Pratt didn't found GOA. H.L. Richardson, a former California state senator who belonged to the conspiracy-minded John Birch Society three decades ago, did. It was 1975, a time when according to Josh Sugarman's book NRA: Money, Firepower and Fear, hard-lines were worried that the NRA's leadership was forsaking politics for conservation and sports shooting.

Please share this, let the children speak, let them choose to LIVE through anti gun art. THANKS! http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2012/12/let_us_live_campaign_children.html?fb_action_ids=447573755297575&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Larry Pratt in 2010 at the Second Amendment rally at the Washington Monument in Washington DC:

"Speaking to the crowd assembled on the monument grounds on Monday, Pratt seemed to have more on his mind that simply protecting his family. He was particularly miffed at former President Bill Clinton's remarks earlier in the week that calls to violence against the government were inherently dangerous. Another figure who attracts the ire of many gun-rights advocates is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was that day addressing a ceremony in Oklahoma City commemorating the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the federal Alfred Murrah building by the anti-government extremist Timothy McVeigh, an act that killed 168 people.

"I look around: it's so good to see all these terrorists out here," Pratt said. "Janet Napolitano, she figured, as governor of Arizona, that we didn't have a border problem, but she knows who the real enemy is. Ha, ha, ha, ha. And Bill Clinton's been runnin' cover for her, too. Watch out how you guys speak out there, you know, words can have consequences. Remember Oklahoma City? Yeah, I do. And I also remember the Waco barbecue that your attorney general gave us. Thanks a lot...We're in a war. The other side knows they're at war, because they started it. They're comin' for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They're comin' for everything because they're a bunch of socialists."

McVeigh contended that his murderous actions were retribution for the FBI's storming of the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, which led to the death of 75 people, most by fire. (It remains unclear whether the fires were the result of the assault, which involved a tank, or set by the occupants themselves.) McVeigh chose April 19th for his bombing of the Murrah building because it was the anniversary of the final day of the Waco siege."

I know a lot of teachers, including my daughter-in-law. None of them would remotely consider carrying a gun while teaching. Talk about an accident waiting to happen. Teachers have enough responsibility as it is without having to play the role of security guard.

Maybe the millionaires of this country could give a gift for xmas....."Dollars for your guns". Maybe there would be alot of people ready to give back their guns to the police in trade for cash. Maybe there would be some people that re think their gun ownership at this time...maybe. Maybe there are criminals willing to sell their guns to police instead of other criminals, its all for money. Maybe the murder of precious beautiful children will make a difference this time...maybe.Maybe this will smoke out the real gun lovers that feel like Pratt, the ones that want to overthrow the government. Maybe this will finally show who they are, just like in this election....we are the majority, we have the power to change things. I am an atheist, but hearing Mr. Obama say...God has called them home, made me feel better, just a little. Listening to all the different faiths at that ceremony, made me feel better, just a little. I love our president more than ever and I feel his tears.

One of the persistent talking points to emerge from media discussion of the horrific mass shooting in Connecticut on Friday is the notion that, because Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the country, the shooting demonstrates the futility of legislating against gun violence. The point is made explicitly by those who oppose enacting new gun laws, but is also implicit in pervasive mainstream media citation of Connecticut’s gun laws, and it ignores the far more rational conclusion that even our “strict” gun laws are miles away from where we need to be, as evidenced by the fact that “strict” Connecticut allows citizens to own an assault-style rifle with a grenade launcher.

That’s right, even according to Connecticut state law, which The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence ranks as 5th strongest in the nation, allows for the possession of a semiautomatic assault-style rifle with a grenade launcher, as long as it doesn’t also have one of these features: •A folding or telescoping stock; •A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; •A bayonet mount; •A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor

You’re allowed to have any one of those features on your semiautomatic rifle, but not two of them, so if you want to fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger and launch grenades, and use a bayonet, you’re out of luck. Bullets and grenades, only. Thankfully, real grenade-launcher rounds are tough to get, but the launchers can also be adapted to fire shotgun shells.

The real point, though, is that characterizing Connecticut’s gun laws, or any U.S. gun laws, as “strict” sets up a series of wholly inadequate goalposts for the laws we hope to end up with as the “discussion” on gun violence continues, and it leads to a distorted view of this tragedy as it relates to the law, that the law is not an effective way to address it. On Saturday’s Up With Chris Hayes, host Chris Hayes threw out this idea in devil’s advocate mode, and gun control advocates Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Deputy New York City Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson immediately folded like self-aware origami, and accepted the premise.

“Gun advocates are going to say, ‘In this case, we had three weapons in a state with relatively strict gun laws,’” Hayes said, “all legally purchased, registered to the mother. You guys are coming with your prepackaged solutions, which is to crack down on the laws, even though the facts in the case, as we know them, don’t manifest themselves as things that would have been prevented.”

What a lovely idea. What's next? Kevlar outfits for kids? Arm the kids? Pratt's just the tip of the iceberg, the one's not speaking worry me. The Schaeffer Cox types in the woods with their twisted "guns and moses second amendment" memes.

Excerpt: "A right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government, and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home…. This is a drill, repeat this is a drill." read on...........

I sent this article to two of my friends with a lot of bluster. I wanted them to know this is no game.

That's totally opposite of reality so I'm not surprised he's a radical right wing teabagger. Blood is on the hands of those congress members who did NOT ban guns nationwide. In addition to all NRA members who only have guns to make up for their tiny penis syndrome. The 2nd amendment should be repealed and all guns confiscated and if you disagree that means you support more dead babies. End of debate.

Bitter clingers/gun nuts are hilarious. They actually think they'll be able to fight against a government who has drones, tanks, helicopters and airplanes with their pathetic little pea shooters? Bwhahahahaha. What idiot losers.

About Me

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.